“O foolish
Galatians7373 [“Paul addresses himself again directly to the Galatians
with an expression of indignant surprise at their relapse into Judaism
and passes from the historical to the doctrinal part of the Epistle,
from the apology of his apostolic authority to the defense of his
apostolic teaching.”—Schaff in Pop.
Com.—G.A.]who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set
forth, crucified?”

Here he
passes to another subject; in the former chapters he had shown himself
not to be an Apostle of men, nor by men, nor in want of Apostolic
instruction. Now, having established his authority as a teacher, he
proceeds to discourse more confidently, and draws a comparison between
faith and the Law. At the outset he said, “I marvel that ye are
so quickly removing;” (Gal. i. 6.) but here,
“O foolish Galatians;” then, his indignation was in
its 24birth,
but now, after his refutation of the charges against himself, and his
proofs, it bursts forth. Let not his calling them “foolish”
surprise you; for it is not a transgression of Christ’s command
not to call one’s brother a fool, but rather a strict observance
of it. For it is not said simply, “Whosoever shall say to his
brother, Thou fool,” (Mat. v. 22.) but, whosoever
shall do so, “without a cause.”7474 [The
word εἰκῆ, ‘without
a cause,’ occurs in the textus receptus on inferior
authority in connection with the words ‘whosoever shall be angry
with his brother’ (without a cause), but no where with the words,
‘whosoever shall say, Thou fool,’ as Chrys. here connects
them.—G.A.] And
who more fittingly than they could so be called, who after so great
events, adhered to past things, as if nothing else had ever happened?
If on this account Paul is to be called a “reviler,” Peter
may likewise, on account of Annanias and Sapphira, be called a
homicide; but as it would be wildness to do so in that case, much more
in this. Moreover it is to be considered, that this vehemence is not
used at the beginning, but after these evidences and proofs, which,
rather than Paul himself, might now be held to administer the rebuke.
For after he had shown that they rejected the faith, and made the death
of Christ to be without a purpose, he introduces his reproof, which,
even as it is, is less severe than they merited. Observe too how soon
he stays his arm; for he adds not, Who has seduced you? who has
perverted you? who has been sophistical with you? but, “Who hath
cast an envious eye on you?” thus tempering his reprimand with
somewhat of praise. For it implies that their previous course had
excited jealousy,7575 [“The word means ‘to bewitch by words, to
enchant,’ and is not to be explained with Chrysostom, ‘who
has envied you?’ that is, your previous happy
condition?”—Meyer.—G.A.] and that the present
occurrence arose from the malignity of a demon, whose breath had
blasted their prosperous estate.

And when you hear of jealousy in
this place, and in the Gospel, of an evil eye, which means the same,
you must not suppose that the glance of the eye has any natural power
to injure those who look upon it. For the eye, that is, the organ
itself, cannot be evil; but Christ in that place means jealousy by the
term. To behold, simply, is the function of the eye, but to behold in
an evil manner belongs to a mind depraved within. As through this sense
the knowledge of visible objects enters the soul, and as jealousy is
for the most part generated by wealth, and wealth and sovereignty and
pomp are perceived by the eye, therefore he calls the eye evil; not as
beholding merely, but as beholding enviously from some moral depravity.
Therefore by the words, “Who hath looked enviously on you,”
he implies that the persons in question acted, not from concern, not to
supply defects, but to mutilate what existed. For envy, far from
supplying what is wanting, subtracts from what is complete, and
vitiates the whole. And he speaks thus, not as if envy had any power of
itself, but meaning, that the teachers of these doctrines did so from
envious motives.

Yet was He not crucified in
Galatia, but at Jerusalem. His reason for saying, “among
you,”7676 [Εν
ὑμῖν is spurious, being
omitted by Aleph. A. B. C. versions, Fathers, and Rev. Ver. as well as
by W. and H.—G.A.] is to declare the power of faith to
see events which are at a distance. He says not,
“crucified,” but, “openly set forth crucified,”
signifying that by the eye of faith they saw more distinctly than some
who were present as spectators. For many of the latter received no
benefit, but the former, who were not eye-witnesses, yet saw it by
faith more clearly. These words convey both praise and blame; praise,
for their implicit acceptance of the truth; blame, because Him whom
they had seen, for their sakes, stripped naked, transfixed, nailed to
the cross, spit upon, mocked, fed with vinegar, upbraided by thieves,
pierced with a spear; (for all this is implied in the words,
“openly set forth, crucified,”)7777 [“This signifies the life-like pictorial vivacity and
effectiveness of Paul’s preaching of Christ and Him crucified.
The Greek verb is used of placarding public notices and
proclamations.”—Schaff.—G.A.] Him
had they left, and betaken themselves to the Law, unshamed by any of
those sufferings. Here observe how Paul, leaving all mention of heaven,
earth, and sea, every where preaches the power of Christ, bearing about
as he did, and holding up His cross: for this is the sum of the Divine
love toward us.

Ver.
2.
“This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the
works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?”

As ye do not attend, says he, to
long discourses, nor are willing to contemplate the magnitude of this
Economy, I am desirous, (seeing your extreme ignorance,) to convince
you by concise arguments and a summary method of proof. Before, he had
convinced them by what he said to Peter; now, he encounters them
entirely with arguments, drawn not from what had occurred elsewhere,
but from what had happened among themselves.7878 [“See how effectually he treats the topic from (their own)
experience.”—Luther, quoted by Meyer. G.A.] And
his persuasives and proofs are adduced, not merely from what was given
them in common with others, but from what was especially conferred on
themselves. Therefore he says, “This only would I learn from you,
Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of
faith.” Ye have received, he says, the Holy Spirit, ye
25have done many
mighty works, ye have effected miracles in raising the dead, in
cleansing lepers, in prophesying, in speaking with tongues,—did
the Law confer this great power upon you? was it not rather Faith,
seeing that, before, ye could do no such things? Is it not then the
height of madness for these who have received such benefits from Faith,
to abandon it, and desert back to the Law which can offer you nothing
of the same kind?

Ver.
3.
“Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now
perfected in the flesh?”

Here again he seasonably
interposes a rebuke; time, he says, should have brought improvement;
but, so far from advancing, ye have even retrograded. Those who start
from small beginnings make progress to higher things; ye, who began
with the high, have relapsed to the low. Even had your outset been
carnal, your advance should have been spiritual, but now, after
starting from things spiritual, ye have ended your journey in that
which is carnal; for to work miracles is spiritual, but to be
circumcised is carnal. And after miracles ye have passed to
circumcision, after having apprehended the truth ye have fallen back to
types, after gazing on the sun ye seek a candle, after having strong
meat ye run for milk. He says, “made perfect,”7979 [This
distinction between τελέω and
ἐπιτελέω was not in the mind of the Apostle. The contrast with ἐναρξάμενοι, ‘having begun,’ shows that ἐπ
τελεῖσθε simply means ‘are ye made perfect,’ “the
compound involving the idea of bringing to a ‘complete and
perfect’ end.” (Ellicott.) There may be a slight tinge of
irony in the compound word.—G.A.] which means not “initiated”
merely, but “sacrificed,” signifying that their teachers
took and slew them like animals, while they resigned themselves to
suffer what those teachers pleased. As if some captain, or
distinguished man, after a thousand victories and trophies, were to
subject himself to infamy as a deserter, and offer his body to be
branded at the will of others.

Ver.
4.
“Did ye suffer so many things in vain?8080 [“As we know nothing of persecutions endured by Galatians,
it seems preferable to take the word in a neutral sense embracing all
spiritual experiences (blessings and benefits as well) of the
Galatians. (Comp. v. 3 and
6.)”—Schaff. Lightfoot refers it to the persecutions
endured by the Galatians from Jews citing Gal. v. 11; and says
“the ἐί γεleaves a loophole for doubt
which the καί, following,
widens.” So Ellicott. Meyer says, “It refers to everything
which the false apostles in their Judaistic zeal had troubled and
burdened the Galatians with. The εἰκῆ then means
“and all to no profit, all in vain,” if indeed it be only
(καί) in vain and not to the positive risk of your Messianic
salvation that ye have suffered.”—G.A.] if it
be indeed in vain.”

This remark is far more piercing
than the former, for the remembrance of their miracles would not be so
powerful as the exhibition of their contests and endurance of
sufferings for Christ’s sake. All that you have endured, says he,
these men would strip you of, and would rob you of your crown. Then,
lest he should dismay and unnerve, he proceeds not to a formal
judgment, but subjoins, “if it be indeed in vain;” if you
have but a mind to shake off drowsiness and recover yourselves, he
says, it is not in vain. Where then be those who would cut off
repentance8181 The
Novatians, who said the revealed covenant of grace did not provide for
the case of the lapsed.? Here were men who had received the
Spirit, worked miracles, become confessors, encountered a thousand
perils and persecutions for Christ’s sake, and after so many
achievements had fallen from grace; nevertheless he says, if ye have
the purpose, ye may recover yourselves.

Ver.
5.
“He therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit, and worketh
miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the
hearing of faith?”

Have ye been vouchsafed, he
says, so great a gift, and achieved such wonders, because ye observed
the Law, or because ye adhered to Faith? plainly on account of Faith.
Seeing that they played this argument to and fro, that apart from the
Law, Faith had no force, he proves the contrary, viz., that if the
Commandments be added, Faith no longer avails; for Faith then has
efficacy when things from the Law are not added to it. “Ye who
would be justified by the Law, ye are fallen away from grace:”
(Gal.
v. 4.) This he says later, when his language has grown bolder,
employing the vantage-ground by that time gained; meanwhile while
gaining it, he argues from their past experience. For it was when ye
obeyed Faith, he says, not the Law, that ye received the Spirit and
wrought miracles.

And here, as the Law was the
subject of discussion, he moots another special point of controversy,
and very opportunely and with much cogency introduces a notice of
Abraham.

Ver.
6.
“Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
righteousness.”

Even the miracles done by
themselves, he says, declare the power of Faith, but I shall attempt if
you will suffer me to draw my proofs from ancient narratives also.
Then, as they made great account of the Patriarch, he brings his
example forward, and shows that he too was justified by Faith.8282 [“The answer, obvious of itself, to the preceding question
is ἐξ ἀκοῆς
πίστεως,
‘from the hearing of faith,’ and to this Paul subjoins that
great religious-historic argument for the righteousness of faith which
is presented in the justification of the progenitor of the theocratic
people.”—Meyer.—G.A.] And if he who was before grace, was
justified by Faith, although plentiful in works, much more we. For what
loss was it to him, not being under the Law? None, for his faith
sufficed unto righteousness. The Law did not then exist, he says,
neither does it now exist, any more than then. In disproving the need
of the Law, he introduces one who was justified before the Law, lest an
objection should also be made to him; for as then it was 26not yet given, so now,
having been given, it was abrogated. And as they made much of their
descent from Abraham, and feared lest, abandoning the Law, they should
be considered strangers to his kin; Paul removes this fear by turning
their argument against themselves, and proves that faith is especially
concerned in connecting them with Abraham. He draws out this argument
more at length in the Epistle to the Romans; however he urges it also
here in, the words,

Ver.
7.
“Know therefore, that they which be of faith, the same are sons
of Abraham.”

Which he proves by ancient
testimony thus:

Ver.
8.
“And the Scripture,8383 [“The Scripture personified. The only case in N.T. where the
personification of Scripture goes beyond λέγει or
εἶπεν,” etc.—Lightfoot.—G.A.] foreseeing that
God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand
unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be
blessed.”

If then those were
Abraham’s sons, not, who were related to him by blood, but who
follow his faith, for this is the meaning of the words, “In thee
all the nations,” it is plain that the heathen are brought into
kindred with him.

Hereby too is proved another
important point. It perplexed them that the Law was the older, and
Faith afterwards. Now he removes this notion by showing that Faith was
anterior to the Law; as is evident from Abraham’s case, who was
justified before the giving of the Law. He shows too that late events
fell out according to prophecy; “The Scripture,” says he,
“foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,
preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham.” Attend to this
point. He Himself who gave the Law, had decreed, before He gave it,
that the heathen should be justified by Faith. And he says not
“revealed,” but, “preached the Gospel,” to
signify that the patriarch was in joy at this method of justification,
and in great desire for its accomplishment.

Further, they were possessed
with another apprehension; it was written, “Cursed is every one
that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the
Law, to do them.” (Deut. xxvii.
26.)
And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their
argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the
Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not
only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was
cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept
it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone
was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is
blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing
which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close
attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to
the words spoken to the Patriarch, “In thee shall all nations be
blessed,” (Gen. xii. 4.) at a time, that is,
when Faith existed, not the Law; so he adds by way of
conclusion,

Ver.
9.
“So then they which be of faith are blessed with the faithful
Abraham.”8484 [“After having pointed out from Scripture v. 6 and 7, that none other than
believers are sons of Abraham, Paul now shows further from Scripture
that none other than believers have a share in Abraham’s
blessing, i.e., are
justified.”—Meyer.—G.A.]

Then, that they might not turn
round, and object that, true it was Abraham was justified by Faith, for
the Law was not then given, but what instance would be found of Faith
justifying after the delivery of the Law? he addresses himself to this,
and proves more than they required: namely, not only that Faith was
justifying, but that the Law brought its adherents under a curse. To be
sure of this, listen to the very words of the Apostle.

Ver.
10.
“For8585 [“Having shown by positive proof that justification is of
faith, he adds the negative argument derived from the impossibility of
maintaining its opposite, namely, justification by Law. This negative
argument is twofold: First, it is impossible
to fulfill the requirements of the law and nonfulfillment lays us under
a curse (Ver. 10.); Secondly, supposing
the fulfilment possible, still the spirit of the Law is antagonistic to
faith, which is elsewhere spoken of as the source of life.
(Ver. 11 and 12.).”—Lightfoot.—G.A.] as many as are of the works of the
Law are under a curse.”

This is what he lays down,
before proving it; and what is the proof? it is from the Law
itself:—

Ver. 10,
11.
“For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in
all things that are written in the book of the Law to do them. Now that
no man is justified by the Law is evident.”

For all have sinned, and are
under the curse. However he does not say this yet, lest he should seem
to lay it down of himself, but here again establishes his point by a
text which concisely states both points; that no man has fulfilled the
Law, (wherefore they are under the curse,) and, that Faith justifies.
What then is the text? It is in the book of the prophet Habakkuk,
“The just shall live by faith,” (Hab. ii. 4.) which not only
establishes the righteousness that is of Faith, but also that there is
no salvation through the Law. As no one, he says, kept the Law, but all
were under the curse, on account of transgression, an easy way was
provided, that from Faith, which is in itself a strong proof that no
man can be justified by the Law. For the prophet says not, “The
just shall live by the Law,” but, “by
faith:”

Ver.
12.
“And the Law is not of faith; but He that doeth them shall live
in them.”

For the Law requires not only
Faith but works also, but grace saves and justifies by Faith.
(Eph.
ii. 8.)

27You see how he proves that they are under the curse who cleave to
the Law, because it is impossible to fulfill it; next, how comes Faith
to have this justifying power? for to this doctrine he already stood
pledged, and now maintains it with great force of argument. The Law
being too weak to lead man to righteousness, an effectual remedy was
provided in Faith, which is the means of rendering that possible which
was “impossible by the Law.” (Rom. viii. 3.) Now as the
Scripture says, “the just shall live by faith,” thus
repudiating salvation by the Law, and moreover as Abraham was justified
by Faith, it is evident that its efficacy is very great. And it is also
clear, that he who abides not by the Law is cursed, and that he who
keeps to Faith is just. But, you may ask me, how I prove that this
curse is not still of force? Abraham lived before the Law, but we, who
once were subject to the yoke of bondage, have made ourselves liable to
the curse; and who shall release us therefrom? Observe his ready answer
to this; his former remark was sufficient; for, if a man be once
justified, and has died to the Law and embraced a novel life, how can
such a one be subject to the curse? however, this is not enough for
him, so he begins with a fresh argument, as follows:—

Ver.
13.
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a
curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree.”8686 [“A parenthetic justification from Deut. xxi. 23. of the startling
expression just used. The passage refers to those criminals who, after
being stoned, were hung upon a stake, but were not permitted to remain
over night lest the holy land should be desecrated. Our Saviour
fulfilled the legal curse by hanging dead on the cross. This is one of
the strongest passages for the doctrine of a vicarious atonement. The
vicarious efficacy lies not so much in the preposition, ὑπέρ,᾽ ‘for,’ as in the whole
sentence.”—Schaff—G.A.]

In reality, the people were
subject to another curse, which says, “Cursed is every one that
continueth not in the things that are written in the book of the
Law.” (Deut. xxvii. 26.) To this curse, I say,
people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of,
the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other,
“Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” As then both
he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed,
and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse
himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it,
therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us
from the curse. It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die
for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment.
For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other
curse, in order to remove that of others. For, “He had done no
violence neither was any deceit in His mouth.” (Isa. liii. 9; 1
Peter ii. 22.) And as by dying He rescued from death those who were
dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from
it.

How on the Gentiles? It is said,
“In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed:” (Gen. xxii. 18; xxvi. 4.) that is to say, in
Christ. If this were said of the Jews, how would it be reasonable that
they who were themselves subject to the curse, on account of
transgression, should become the authors of a blessing to others? an
accursed person cannot impart to others that blessing of which he is
himself deprived. Plainly then it all refers to Christ who was the Seed
of Abraham, and through whom the Gentiles are blessed. And thus the
promise of the Spirit is added, as Paul himself declares, “that
we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”8787 [“After a wondrous chain of arguments * * the apostle comes
back to the subject of verse
2:
the gift of the Holy Ghost came through faith in
Christ.”—Ellicott.—G.A.] As the grace of the Spirit could not
possibly descend on the graceless and offending, they are first blessed
the curse having been removed; then being justified by faith, they draw
unto themselves the grace of the Spirit. Thus the Cross removed the
curse, Faith brought in righteousness, righteousness drew on the grace
of the Spirit.

Ver.
15.
“Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a
man’s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it
void or addeth thereto.”

“To speak after the manner
of men” means to use human examples.8888 [“Paul now assumes a milder tone and reasons from the common
dealings of men.”—Schaff.—G.A.]
Having founded his argument on the Scriptures, on the miracles wrought
among themselves, on the sufferings of Christ, and on the Patriarch, he
proceeds to common usages; and this he does invariably, in order to
sweeten his discourse, and render it more acceptable and intelligible
to the duller sort. Thus he argues with the Corinthians, “Who
feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Who planteth
a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof?” (1 Cor. ix.
7.)
and again with the Hebrews, “For a testament is of force where
there hath been death; for doth it ever avail while he that made it
liveth?” (Heb. ix. 17.) One may find him
dwelling with pleasure on such arguments. In the Old Testament God does
the same thing in many instances, as, “Can a woman forget her
sucking child?” (Isa. xlix. 15.) and again,
“Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest
thou?” (Isa. xlv. 9.) and in Hosea, He
represents a husband set at nought by his wife. (Hos. ii. 5, f) This use of
human 28examples frequently occurs in types also, as when the prophet
takes the girdle, (Jer. xiii.
1–9.) and goes down to the potter’s house (Jer. xviii.
1–6.) The meaning of the present example is, that Faith is more
ancient than the Law, which is later and only temporary, and delivered
in order to pave the way for Faith. Hence he says, “Brethren, I
speak after the manner of men;” above he had called them
“foolish,” now he calls them “brethren,” at
once chiding and encouraging them. “Though it be but a
man’s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed.” If a man,
says he, makes a covenant, does any one dare to come afterwards and
overturn it, or subjoin aught to it? for this is the meaning of
“or addeth thereto.” Much less then when God makes a
covenant; and with whom did God make a covenant?

Ver. 16,
17, 18. “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken and to his seed.
He saith not, And to seeds,8989 [“A difficulty arises here from the stress which Paul lays
on the singular of the word ‘seed,’ which is a collective
noun in Heb. and Greek, and includes the whole posterity. But it is not
a question of grammar but of spiritual meaning. The Promise refers to
Christ par excellence, and to all those and only those who are
truly members of His body, united to Him by a living faith. If all the
single descendants of Abraham were meant, the children of Hagar and
Keturah and subsequently of Esau and his descendants, would have to be
included.”—Schaff.—G.A.] as of many; but as
of One, And to thy seed, which is Christ.9090 [“Not as a single individual but as Head of the church which
is His body, Eph. 1: 23. The key to the passage
is in ver. 28 and 29: ‘Ye are
all one in Christ
Jesus.’”—Schaff.—G.A.] Now this
I say, A covenant, confirmed before hand by God the Law, which came
four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make
the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance is of the Law, it is
no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by
promise.”

Thus God made a covenant with
Abraham, promising that in his seed the blessing should come upon the
heathen; and this blessing the Law cannot turn aside. As this example
was not in all respects appropriate to the matter in hand, he
introduces it thus, “I speak after the manner of men,” that
nothing might be deduced from it derogatory to the majesty of God. But
let us go to the bottom of this illustration. It was promised Abraham
that by his seed the heathen should be blessed; and his seed according
to the flesh is Christ; four hundred and thirty years after came the
Law; now, if the Law bestows the blessings even life and righteousness,
that promise is annulled. And so while no one annuls a man’s
covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is
annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows
what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most
unreasonable.

Ver.
19.
“What then is the Law? it was added because of
transgressions.”

This remark again is not
superfluous; observe too how he glances round at every thing, as if he
had an hundred eyes. Having exalted Faith, and proved its elder claims,
that the Law may not be considered superfluous, he sets right this side
of the doctrine also, and proves that the Law was not given without a
view, but altogether profitably. “Because of
transgressions;” that is to say, that the Jews might not be let
live carelessly, and plunge into the depth of wickedness,9191 [“This interpretation of Chrysostom must be rejected on
lexical grounds. The law was in order to bring sin to light and make it
appear in its true character and thus by a knowledge of the disease
prepare its cure.”—Ellicott and
Schaff.—G.A.] but that the Law might be placed upon them as
a bridle, guiding, regulating, and checking them from transgressing, if
not all, at least some of the commandments. Not slight then was the
advantage of the Law; but for how long?

Ver.
19.
“Till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been
made.”

This is said of Christ; if then
it was given until His advent, why do you protract it beyond its
natural period?

Ver.
19.
“And it was ordained through Angels by the hand of a
Mediator.”

He either calls the priests
Angels, or he declares that the Angels themselves ministered to the
delivery of the Law. By Mediator here he means Christ,9292 [“We may reasonably wonder,” says Ellicott, “how
the early expositors (Basil and Theodoret excepted) could have so
generally coincided in the perplexing view of Origen that the Mediator
here mentioned was Christ. On the contrary it is plain that it was
Moses, Deut. v. 5.”—G.A.] and shows that He was before it, and Himself
the Giver of it.

Ver.
20.
“Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is
one.”9393 [“This verse is counted the most difficult passage in the
New Testament, and has given rise to about 300
interpretations.” That of Lightfoot seems
to satisfy the context, and is thus forcibly put by him: “The law
is of the nature of a contract between two parties. God on the one hand
and the Jewish people on the other. It is valid only so long as both
parties fulfil the terms of contract. It is therefore contingent and
not absolute. Unlike the law the promise is absolute and unconditional.
It depends on the sole decree of God. There are not two contracting
parties. There is nothing of the nature of a stipulation. The giver is
everything and the recipient nothing.”—Com. in loco.—G.A.]

What can the heretics9494 The
heretics refered to are the Anomœans, who held Arianism in its
most developed form, against whom S. Chrysostom has written Homilies.
For the particular objection answered in the text, vid. also Basil, in Eunom, iv. p. 294. Athan. Or
in Arian, iii. 9. Greg. Naz. Orat. 36, p. 586. say to this? for as, according to them, the
expression “the Only True God” excludes the Son from being
true God, so here the phrase “God is One,” excludes Him
from being God in any sense. But if, although the Father is called
“One God,” the Son is nevertheless God, it is very plain
that though the Father is called “Very God,” the Son is
very God likewise. Now a mediator, says he, is between two parties; of
whom then is Christ the Mediator? plainly of God and of men. Observe,
he says, that Christ also gave the Law; what therefore it was His to
give, it is His to annul.

Ver.
21.
“For if there had been a law given which could make alive verily
righteousness would have been of the Law.”

His meaning is as follows; If we
had our hope of life in the Law, and our salvation depended on it, the
objection might be valid. But if it save you, by means of Faith, though
it brings you under the curse, you suffer nothing from it, gain no
harm, in that Faith comes and sets all right. Had the promise been by
the Law, you had reasonably feared lest, separating from the Law, you
should separate from righteousness, but if it was given in order to
shut up all, that is, to convince all and expose their individual sins,
far from excluding you from the promises, it now aids you in obtaining
them. This is shown by the words,

Ver.
22.
“Howbeit the scripture9595 [“The Law then though differing widely from the promise is
not antagonistic to it, does not interfere with it. On the contrary, we
might imagine such a law as would justify and give life. This was not
the effect of the law of Moses, however; on the contrary (ἀλλὰ) the Scripture (that,
namely, about the curse, v.
10:)
testifies that the Law condemned all alike, yet not finally and
irrevocably but only as leading the way for the dispensation of
faith.”—Lightfoot. Meyer takes a different view of
v. 21: “For if it had
been opposed to the promises, the Law must have been in a position to
procure life and if this were so, then would righteousness actually be
from the Law, which according to the Scripture cannot be so
(ver. 22.)”—G.A.] hath shut up all
things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be
given to them that believe.”

As the Jews were not even
conscious of their own sins, and in consequence did not even desire
remission; the Law was given to probe their wounds, that they might
long for a physician. And the word “shut up” means
“convinced” and conviction held them in fear. You see then
it is not only not against, but was given for the promises. Had it
arrogated to itself the work and the authority, the objection would
stand; but if its drift is something else, and it acted for that, how
is it against the promises of God? Had the Law not been given, all
would have been wrecked upon wickedness, and there would have been no
Jews to listen to Christ; but now being given, it has effected two
things; it has schooled its followers in a certain degree of virtue,
and has pressed on them the knowledge of their own sins. And this
especially made them more zealous to seek the Son, for those who
disbelieved, disbelieved from having no sense of their own sins, as
Paul shows; “For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and
seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not subject
themselves to the righteousness of God.” (Rom. x. 3.)

Ver.
23.
“But before faith came, we were kept inward under the Law, shut
up unto the faith which should afterwards be
revealed.”

Here he clearly puts forward
what I have stated: for the expressions “we were kept” and
“shut up,” signify nothing else than the security given by
the commandments of the Law; which like a fortress fenced them round
with fear and a life conformable to itself, and so preserved them unto
Faith.

Ver.
24.
“So that the Law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ,
that we might be justified by faith.”

Now the Tutor is not opposed to
the Preceptor, but cooperates with him, ridding the youth from all
vice, and having all leisure to fit him for receiving instructions from
his Preceptor. But when the youth’s habits are formed, then the
Tutor leaves him, as Paul says.

Ver. 25,
26.
“But now that faith is come which leads to perfect manhood we are
no longer under a tutor9696 [“The pædagogus or tutor, frequently a superior slave,
was entrusted with the moral supervision of the child. Thus his office
was quite distinct from that of the διδάσκαλος; so the word “Schoolmaster” conveys a wrong
idea. As well in his inferior rank as in his recognized duty of
enforcing discipline, this person was a fit emblem of the Mosaic law.
There is a very complete illustration of the use which Paul makes of
the metaphor in Plato (Lysis, p, 208
C).”—Lightfoot.—G.A.]. For ye are all sons
of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

The Law then, as it was our
tutor, and we were kept shut up under it, is not the adversary but the
fellow-worker of grace; but if when grace is come, it continues to hold
us down, it becomes an adversary; for if it confines those who ought to
go forward to grace, then it is the destruction of our salvation. If a
candle which gave light by night, kept us, when it became day, from the
sun, it would not only not benefit, it would injure us; and so doth the
Law, if it stands between us and greater benefits. Those then are the
greatest traducers of the Law, who still keep it, just as the tutor
makes a youth ridiculous, by retaining him with himself, when time
calls for his departure. Hence Paul says, “But after faith is
come, we are no longer under a tutor.” We are then no longer
under a tutor, “for ye are all sons of God.” Wonderful! see
how mighty is the power of Faith, and how he unfolds as he proceeds!
Before, he showed that it made them sons of the Patriarch, “Know
therefore,” says he, “that they which be of faith, the same
are sons of Abraham;” now he proves that they are sons of God
also, “For ye are all,” says he, “sons of God through
faith, which is in Christ Jesus;” by Faith, not by the Law. Then,
when he has said this 30great and wonderful thing, he names also the mode of their
adoption,

Ver.
27.
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, did put on
Christ.”

Why does he not say, “For
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have been born of
God?” for this was what directly went to prove that they were
sons;—because he states it in a much more awful point of view; If
Christ be the Son of God, and thou hast put on Him, thou who hast the
Son within thee, and art fashioned after His pattern, hast been brought
into one kindred and nature with Him.

Ver.
28.
“There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond
nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye all are one in Christ
Jesus.”

See what an insatiable soul! for
having said, “We are all made children of God through
Faith,” he does not stop there, but tries to find something more
exact, which may serve to convey a still closer oneness with Christ.
Having said, “ye have put on Christ,” even this does not
suffice Him, but by way of penetrating more deeply into this union, he
comments on it thus: “Ye are all One in Christ Jesus,” that
is, ye have all one form and one mould, even Christ’s. What can
be more awful than these words! He that was a Greek, or Jew, or
bond-man yesterday, carries about with him the form, not of an Angel or
Archangel, but of the Lord of all, yea displays in his own person the
Christ.

Ver.
29.
“And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed,
heirs according to promise.”

Here, you observe, he proves
what he had before stated concerning the seed of Abraham,—that to
him and to his seed the promises were given.9797 [So
Schaff: “Verse
16 must here be kept in view where Christ is declared to be the seed
of Abraham. Union with Christ constitutes the true spiritual descent
from Abraham and secures the inheritance of all the Messianic blessings
by promise as against inheritance by law.” Pop.
Com. in loc.—G.A.]

73 [“Paul addresses himself again directly to the Galatians
with an expression of indignant surprise at their relapse into Judaism
and passes from the historical to the doctrinal part of the Epistle,
from the apology of his apostolic authority to the defense of his
apostolic teaching.”—Schaff in Pop.
Com.—G.A.]

74 [The
word εἰκῆ, ‘without
a cause,’ occurs in the textus receptus on inferior
authority in connection with the words ‘whosoever shall be angry
with his brother’ (without a cause), but no where with the words,
‘whosoever shall say, Thou fool,’ as Chrys. here connects
them.—G.A.]

75 [“The word means ‘to bewitch by words, to
enchant,’ and is not to be explained with Chrysostom, ‘who
has envied you?’ that is, your previous happy
condition?”—Meyer.—G.A.]

76 [Εν
ὑμῖν is spurious, being
omitted by Aleph. A. B. C. versions, Fathers, and Rev. Ver. as well as
by W. and H.—G.A.]

77 [“This signifies the life-like pictorial vivacity and
effectiveness of Paul’s preaching of Christ and Him crucified.
The Greek verb is used of placarding public notices and
proclamations.”—Schaff.—G.A.]

78 [“See how effectually he treats the topic from (their own)
experience.”—Luther, quoted by Meyer. G.A.]

79 [This
distinction between τελέω and
ἐπιτελέω was not in the mind of the Apostle. The contrast with ἐναρξάμενοι, ‘having begun,’ shows that ἐπ
τελεῖσθε simply means ‘are ye made perfect,’ “the
compound involving the idea of bringing to a ‘complete and
perfect’ end.” (Ellicott.) There may be a slight tinge of
irony in the compound word.—G.A.]

80 [“As we know nothing of persecutions endured by Galatians,
it seems preferable to take the word in a neutral sense embracing all
spiritual experiences (blessings and benefits as well) of the
Galatians. (Comp. v. 3 and
6.)”—Schaff. Lightfoot refers it to the persecutions
endured by the Galatians from Jews citing Gal. v. 11; and says
“the ἐί γεleaves a loophole for doubt
which the καί, following,
widens.” So Ellicott. Meyer says, “It refers to everything
which the false apostles in their Judaistic zeal had troubled and
burdened the Galatians with. The εἰκῆ then means
“and all to no profit, all in vain,” if indeed it be only
(καί) in vain and not to the positive risk of your Messianic
salvation that ye have suffered.”—G.A.]

81 The
Novatians, who said the revealed covenant of grace did not provide for
the case of the lapsed.

82 [“The answer, obvious of itself, to the preceding question
is ἐξ ἀκοῆς
πίστεως,
‘from the hearing of faith,’ and to this Paul subjoins that
great religious-historic argument for the righteousness of faith which
is presented in the justification of the progenitor of the theocratic
people.”—Meyer.—G.A.]

83 [“The Scripture personified. The only case in N.T. where the
personification of Scripture goes beyond λέγει or
εἶπεν,” etc.—Lightfoot.—G.A.]

84 [“After having pointed out from Scripture v. 6 and 7, that none other than
believers are sons of Abraham, Paul now shows further from Scripture
that none other than believers have a share in Abraham’s
blessing, i.e., are
justified.”—Meyer.—G.A.]

85 [“Having shown by positive proof that justification is of
faith, he adds the negative argument derived from the impossibility of
maintaining its opposite, namely, justification by Law. This negative
argument is twofold: First, it is impossible
to fulfill the requirements of the law and nonfulfillment lays us under
a curse (Ver. 10.); Secondly, supposing
the fulfilment possible, still the spirit of the Law is antagonistic to
faith, which is elsewhere spoken of as the source of life.
(Ver. 11 and 12.).”—Lightfoot.—G.A.]

86 [“A parenthetic justification from Deut. xxi. 23. of the startling
expression just used. The passage refers to those criminals who, after
being stoned, were hung upon a stake, but were not permitted to remain
over night lest the holy land should be desecrated. Our Saviour
fulfilled the legal curse by hanging dead on the cross. This is one of
the strongest passages for the doctrine of a vicarious atonement. The
vicarious efficacy lies not so much in the preposition, ὑπέρ,᾽ ‘for,’ as in the whole
sentence.”—Schaff—G.A.]

87 [“After a wondrous chain of arguments * * the apostle comes
back to the subject of verse
2:
the gift of the Holy Ghost came through faith in
Christ.”—Ellicott.—G.A.]

88 [“Paul now assumes a milder tone and reasons from the common
dealings of men.”—Schaff.—G.A.]

89 [“A difficulty arises here from the stress which Paul lays
on the singular of the word ‘seed,’ which is a collective
noun in Heb. and Greek, and includes the whole posterity. But it is not
a question of grammar but of spiritual meaning. The Promise refers to
Christ par excellence, and to all those and only those who are
truly members of His body, united to Him by a living faith. If all the
single descendants of Abraham were meant, the children of Hagar and
Keturah and subsequently of Esau and his descendants, would have to be
included.”—Schaff.—G.A.]

90 [“Not as a single individual but as Head of the church which
is His body, Eph. 1: 23. The key to the passage
is in ver. 28 and 29: ‘Ye are
all one in Christ
Jesus.’”—Schaff.—G.A.]

91 [“This interpretation of Chrysostom must be rejected on
lexical grounds. The law was in order to bring sin to light and make it
appear in its true character and thus by a knowledge of the disease
prepare its cure.”—Ellicott and
Schaff.—G.A.]

92 [“We may reasonably wonder,” says Ellicott, “how
the early expositors (Basil and Theodoret excepted) could have so
generally coincided in the perplexing view of Origen that the Mediator
here mentioned was Christ. On the contrary it is plain that it was
Moses, Deut. v. 5.”—G.A.]

93 [“This verse is counted the most difficult passage in the
New Testament, and has given rise to about 300
interpretations.” That of Lightfoot seems
to satisfy the context, and is thus forcibly put by him: “The law
is of the nature of a contract between two parties. God on the one hand
and the Jewish people on the other. It is valid only so long as both
parties fulfil the terms of contract. It is therefore contingent and
not absolute. Unlike the law the promise is absolute and unconditional.
It depends on the sole decree of God. There are not two contracting
parties. There is nothing of the nature of a stipulation. The giver is
everything and the recipient nothing.”—Com. in loco.—G.A.]

94 The
heretics refered to are the Anomœans, who held Arianism in its
most developed form, against whom S. Chrysostom has written Homilies.
For the particular objection answered in the text, vid. also Basil, in Eunom, iv. p. 294. Athan. Or
in Arian, iii. 9. Greg. Naz. Orat. 36, p. 586.

95 [“The Law then though differing widely from the promise is
not antagonistic to it, does not interfere with it. On the contrary, we
might imagine such a law as would justify and give life. This was not
the effect of the law of Moses, however; on the contrary (ἀλλὰ) the Scripture (that,
namely, about the curse, v.
10:)
testifies that the Law condemned all alike, yet not finally and
irrevocably but only as leading the way for the dispensation of
faith.”—Lightfoot. Meyer takes a different view of
v. 21: “For if it had
been opposed to the promises, the Law must have been in a position to
procure life and if this were so, then would righteousness actually be
from the Law, which according to the Scripture cannot be so
(ver. 22.)”—G.A.]

96 [“The pædagogus or tutor, frequently a superior slave,
was entrusted with the moral supervision of the child. Thus his office
was quite distinct from that of the διδάσκαλος; so the word “Schoolmaster” conveys a wrong
idea. As well in his inferior rank as in his recognized duty of
enforcing discipline, this person was a fit emblem of the Mosaic law.
There is a very complete illustration of the use which Paul makes of
the metaphor in Plato (Lysis, p, 208
C).”—Lightfoot.—G.A.]

97 [So
Schaff: “Verse
16 must here be kept in view where Christ is declared to be the seed
of Abraham. Union with Christ constitutes the true spiritual descent
from Abraham and secures the inheritance of all the Messianic blessings
by promise as against inheritance by law.” Pop.
Com. in loc.—G.A.]